 |
| Local 107, ATU President, Eric Tuck |
Our primary concern is the impact on the rest of our transit system. Essentially though the Province's/Metro-linx procurement practices, they are attempting to Privatize Public Transit by insisting that the bid process is restricted to a design, build, operate and maintain for 30 years through the 3Ps (Public Private Partnership).
There's been numerous examples that show 3ps procurement policies actually cost taxpayers 30% more over public implementation/operations and often result in greater interruption and diminished services.
By adding private for profit partnerships to a public service eventually those added costs get passed
on to the community through higher fares, and taxes.
More importantly is the loss of local control over our transit system.
Operational Safety, efficiency, reliability and affordability with HSR is accountable by local government.
When things go wrong with privatized transit, everything gets blamed on the private consortium and local politicians throw their hands in the air saying they have no say on schedules, fares, breakdowns and accidents.
A local example is the blame game we witnessed with the stadium fiascal which finished late with sub standard workmanship and came in over budget. The City blamed the province's procurement process. The Province blamed the contractor who in turn blamed the sub contractor who went bankrupt.
If area rating isn't eliminated in the 2018 municipal election and the suburbs that have little or no Transit Services but tremendous growth- if they don't get on board projected ridership, numbers won't materialize and those costs will be added to the entire city and community and could place a drain on the over all transit system.
Other concerns are the impact on all transit during the 5 year construction period resulting in a loss of riders due to extensive delays or rerouting.
Finally the loss of approximately 40 to 50 good quality union jobs that could be replaced with low pay , precarious positions with no pension or benefits to put profit in the pockets of consortiums designed to transfer wealth to the 1%.
ATU has not had been engaged as a stakeholder by Metro-linx. Our only avenue of engagement has been the public process where we have been repeatedly told the procurement process is not up for discussion.
Repeated requests for meetings with Metro-linx have been ignored including a direct letter to the Premier's office.
Repeated requests for meetings with Metro-linx have been ignored including a direct letter to the Premier's office.
ATU and the Hamilton Street Railway have successfully operated and maintained a rail service in Hamilton for over half a Century. Furthermore we have operated one of the most efficient, safest and reliable transit service in North America for going on 118 years. I challenge any private contractor to match our record for performance.
ATU has several Council members who have committed to working with us and our passengers as well as many community groups to ensure ATU/HSR and more importantly, that local control over our Transit System in Hamilton is maintained by defeating Metro-linx 3ps procurement policies.
5. Do you anticipate a juncture at which you may have to take action for your members through legal counsel and through contractual provisions that you might rely on or reference, as it especially pertains to privatization?
ATU Local 107 will use every means at its disposal to defend Public Transit and its collective bargaining rights and provisions obtained over the last 118 year history in serving this community.
6. Why should public transit remain in the hands of the public, if that is what you believe?
Public Transit is a basic necessity. Just as lodging, food , healthcare and education is a necessity, so too is public transit and the ability to access those services. Most everyone, at some point in their lives, will be dependent on public transit. Students, persons with disabilities, permanent/temporary, seniors and those who simply don't have the financial resources to drive or who truly care about the environmental impact . Public Transit is a vital service which is a pivotal equalizer and economic driver of an evolved society. It has been the life blood of this community and every successful city in the world.
7. Is a strike possible if things cannot be resolved?
Same response as #5
The professional members of ATU Local 107 have been serving the transit needs of this city and the surrounding communities for over 118 years. We have every confidence that after more than a century of helping Hamilton to grow into the successful and vibrant thriving City it has become. Our community will stand with us to ensure our public transit system through HSR/ATU drives this great city for the next century just as they did on November 24th, 1906.
Thanks. Respectfully
Thanks. Respectfully
Eric Tuck
President ATU Local 107
President ATU Local 107
Thanks Eric for engaging with Hamiltonians via The Hamiltonian, on this important topic.
Please review our site guidelines about respectful discourse prior to submitting a comment for consideration. You may find it, by clicking here.
Far and above, the best article I have read so far on this topic. Good job
ReplyDeleteThe Captain
"ATU has several Council members who have committed to working with us and our passengers"
ReplyDeleteFact is, there are 5.
And at least one struggling with the optics and maintaining the courage of his convictions.
A vote to advance LRT in it's current design was a vote against existing labour. Period.
Voting in favour of a plan-without recorded reservations-then taking exception to the terms-is the essence of irresponsibility and hypocrisy.
You have taken the "high road" here Mr. Tuck, and I believe the community respects and appreciates the leadership you have demonstrated.
We are with you.
fatmattie.
Here the view of the expert, eric Tuck
Delete""ATU has several Council members who have committed to working with us and our passengers""
Then theres a faceless anonymous poster on social media who says something different:
"Fact is, there are 5."
Who ya gonna believe?
The expert.
Russ
"A vote to advance LRT in it's current design was a vote against existing labour. Period."
DeleteYou are are wrong. You should learn more on the subject before you speak. Innocent people that dont know better might believe you.
Terrance Capoblanco
Sadly, Russ' faith is extremely selective.
DeleteSomehow, advocates have been able to ignore this experts opinion, up until they say something they can construe as useful.
This Council has demonstrated a profound lack of respect for organized labour. I suspect the rank and file will focus their displeasure accordingly.
Not at all. Since its entirely possible that Metrolinx will have unionized drivers for LRT, your chicken little sky has fallen drama is at best premature.
DeleteTracey Coohan
according to Paul Johnson..."highly unlikely"
DeleteYour do nothing, it will all work out in the end sort of thinking is both irresponsible and reckless.
that no Councilor was singled out for their support was telling. Conspicuous by their absence.
Deletefatmattie
"The professional members of ATU Local 107 have been serving the transit needs of this city and the surrounding communities for over 118 years. We have every confidence that after more than a century of helping Hamilton to grow into the successful and vibrant thriving City it has become. Our community will stand with us to ensure our public transit system through HSR/ATU drives this great city for the next century just as they did on November 24th, 1906."
ReplyDelete2017 minus 1906 = 111 years. The HSR was incorporated in 1873 and has only been owned and operated by the City of Hamilton since 1960.
From 1873 to 1889, the HSR was owned by Lyman Moore and operated as a private business.
The HSR was run by local private-sector hydro consortium Hamilton Cataract Power Light and Traction Co., later renamed Dominion Power and Transmission Co., between 1899 and 1930.
It was provincially owned in the 1930-1946 period when it was owned by Ontario Hydro after it bought up DPTC).
The HSR was again privatized 1946-1960, when it was owned and operated by Canada Coach Lines.
So the ATU has existed under a privatized transit system before, for 38 years in all.
Grey Area
If the ATU identifies transit as a basic necessity, that makes them an essential service. How does that alter their compensation, which is the bulk of HSR budget costs (and borne exclusively by locals — riders and taxpayers) .
"Basic necessity" good. "Essential service" bad.
DeleteSee ATU Local 113:
http://www.citynews.ca/2011/03/30/province-makes-ttc-essential-service-strikes-now-banned/
Noted
FWIW, ATU Local 1637 represents employees of Las Vegas Transit, which is operated by Keolis, the same company that will be involved in Waterloo Region's Ion LRT.
DeleteIs it possible that the labour movement is not a monolith of entitlement but an ongoing struggle in which the case must continually be made? And is it possible that the binary presented above is not an inexorable reality so much as an opening position in an ongoing negotiation?
https://www.atu.org/media/releases/las-vegas-transit-workers-rally-for-unity-fairness
https://www.facebook.com/ATU1637/posts/911814842204354
Is
Grey Area
I think Mr. Tuck should prepare his members to be casualties of this ridiculous idea. He should also prepare them to vote for anyone but incumbents in the next election. Make no mistake Mr. Tuck. You're going to get a lot of lip service, holding of hands and _ss kissing. it will mean nothing. Your members will be abandoned. Vote accordingly.
ReplyDeleteSorce
I agree. They will put a candy in your pocket and send you on your way.
DeleteFrom the sidelines
"added costs get passed on to the community through higher fares, and taxes"
ReplyDeleteAs opposed to the HSR's Ten Year Local Transit Strategy, which increased adult passes by 18% and seniors passes by 45%, funding the repair of system deficiencies off the farebox alone — only to have council back away from the prescribed annual tax levy increases (climbing by around 0.4% annually) that were deemed essential to service enhancements.
David Dixon, 2015: Asking riders and drivers to keep dealing with the current HSR system is “untenable.”
D
Grey Area
Dixon referred to Hamilton's LRT proposal as "premature"
Delete"it was felt he just couldn't bring himself to slavishly applaud a project that he basically considered a case of putting the cart before the horse"
Hamilton Spectator, 5/25/16 Andrew Dreschel
"Transit boss to leave as LRT debate grows"
And when they persisted despite his advice, he resigned.
Good. He wasnt a very good Transit boss.
DeleteFare hikes, reduced service, poor planning, unhappy staff. Good riddance.
Terry Capoblanco
subsidized fares, improved service, the actual architect of LRT Hamilton, vastly improved labour relations-according to the experts-but he didn't agree with Terry and the zealots that this should be the priority.
DeleteAnd away he went.
"subsidized fares, improved service, the actual architect of LRT Hamilton, vastly improved labour relations-according to the experts"
DeleteYou say Dixon is responsible for:
Subsidies?
Wrong. Hamilton has always subsidized HSR fares. Under Dixon Seniors and Students lost reduced fares.
Improved Service? Wrong. Service under Dixon suffered.
vastly improved Labour Realtions according to experts? Wrong. Cite your experts.
"Terry and the zealots"
Councilor Terry Whitehead was not a supporter of LRT You should use his proper title as per guidelines on this site.
Zealots? 10 City Councillors voted for LRT. % against. No zealots here. Just smart pragmatists.
Mike Stark
Here’s another take.
DeleteDixon earned $278K in his final year at the TTC, where he was responsible for maintaining the subway, buses, streetcars and transit facilities (which explains his later interest in a $200M bus maintenance storage facility, which would go on to be costed at $150M after his resignation).
Once Dixon was fired from the TTC (because he didn’t fit with CEO Andy Byford’s push to modernize & innovate at the transit commission) his value was in question, but luckily the HSR was hiring. So he took a six-figure pay cut to work for the City of Hamilton.
But COOs are not always good CEOs and Dixon’s weaknesses became apparent in the unrealistic ridership projections he served up in his 10 Year Transit Strategy, which were sunny to the point of irrational exuberance.
Dixon, Nov 2015: "It's not that our ridership is dropping now – it's actually growing, but at a slower rate than a lot of surrounding municipalities.” Dixon forecast a modest ridership *increase* of almost 8,000 passengers in 2015, jumping to a 158,000 increase in 2016.
http://www2.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/192E4CEA-55ED-418A-B60D-AE589F4DDD07/0/TransitStrategy_PW14015a.pdf
Instead, he delivered declines of 327,000 in 2015 and 435,000 in 2016 (with help from council, who punted service improvements intended to take effect in Q1 2015 to Q3 2016), the steepest non-strike declines in a generation. Ridership dropped by almost five times the amount that Dixon said it would grow, and revenue went with it. As a cavernous gulf began to open up between Dixon's projections and stubborn reality, his stock as a transit executive began to plummet. So when an unsolicited offer came to work with Ellis Don (possibly for better money than the HSR), he jumped.
The dramatic fare and pass increases Dixon recommended (roughly 20% increase in adult passes, 40% increase in seniors’ passes) and the introduction of an inconvenient two-card bus pass system for post-secondary students had the predictable effect of squelching ridership. The inability to deliver promised service upgrades didn’t help.
And the cumulative effect of all of this was to kneecap Dixon's 10 Year Transit Strategy, which hoped to use the ridership gains of the first two years to rationalize a new tax levy.
Sigma Cub
"during his less than 2 years in the position Dixon made significant changes to the HSR. He significantly improved morale of HSR employees, improved on time performance, brought forth a 10 year transit plan..."
DeleteEric Tuck, ATU 107 President calls the news "devastating"
"I believe a lot of it has to do with his frustration dealing with Councils inability to stay focused"
the Public Record, 5/24/16
orangemike
To those who are seeking to communicate with Clr. Green via this thread, please communicate with the Clr. directly.
ReplyDeleteThank-you
Local 107 has a binding contract with the City of Hamilton which includes rather specific language respecting exclusivity.
ReplyDeleteWe can expect a reasonable argument that adopting the 3P's approach to LRT in Hamilton is a contravention of the terms and provisions mutually agreed upon. This is unlikely to end well for us taxpayers.
Notwithstanding the inevitable lip service, Council's abandonment of these employees is shameful, blinded by self-will and corrupted by dollars.
I have a $100 bill for the charity of their choice for any Councilor with the chops to speak at an upcoming ATU rally and explain to the rank and file how the "intricacies of personality driven wedge politics" were the impetus for their ultimate betrayal.
"a binding contract with the City of Hamilton which includes rather specific language respecting exclusivity"
DeleteAttending the discussion at Construction House on York Boulevard were representatives from Coco Paving Inc., Dufferin Construction Company, the Ontario Hot Mix Producers Association and the Christian Labour Association of Canada. They're not among the companies that can try for city construction jobs. Only those that are signatory to the Carpenters' Union can bid.
That deal was struck in 2005 when two carpenters (frequently employed by the city and part of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America) faxed the city a notice of their intent to obtain exclusivity on municipal carpentry work. The fax, sent to a rarely-used machine, was missed by city hall staff. Subsequently, no one from the city attended the Labour Board hearing and the workers' request was granted.
The deal has led to scenarios such as the city disqualifying more than half the bids for the multimillion-dollar Woodward Avenue Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant in 2010. Four of the seven companies weren't with the Carpenters' Union.
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/3904705-mpp-hopes-bill-will-put-a-lid-on-labour-monopolies/
Weaver
Studying 28 Ontario P3 projects worth more than $7-billion, University of Toronto researchers in 2012 found that public-private partnerships cost 16% more than conventional tendered contracts, on average.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/the-hidden-price-of-public-private-partnerships/article4611798/
Of the 75 AFP projects reviewed by the Auditor General of Ontario (AO), 47 were in health care, 10 in justice and 6 in transit . Only one of those transit projects was a DBFOM project, and coincidentally it was the only DBFOM among the 75 projects reviewed (vs 30 DBMF and 29 BF, 12 DBF & 3 BFM).
http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/content/annualreports/arreports/en15/3.07en15.pdf
Perhaps the ATU's misgivings about 3P transit would be muted if the procurement model left O&M to the HSR, though the AO's analysis suggests that those are the very models that lead to cost inefficiencies. Perhaps the ATU's "primary concern" is not as cut-and-dried as it first appears — and perhaps the value proposition of the province's AFP model is also more nuanced than some would suggest.
That's certainly the viewpoint of TD Economics, which contends: "The Ontario AG’s report on AFPs at IO raised many valid concerns about the management of processes, and there scope to further refine the VfM analysis, which IO is working on. However, a narrow focus on higher tangible costs of AFPs does a disservice to an innovation in government procurement that has allowed for a more transparent accounting of the full cost of a project in advance, and one that the AG acknowledges has a strong track record. There are many benefits that P3 model has brought in to the system, particularly when it comes to the benefits of a project being completed on time. In fact, if these qualitative benefits were better quantified, either through comparison on delays to a public sector benchmark or measuring the benefits to taxpayers of an asset being available sooner, the value for money of P3s may be even larger than IO currently estimates."
http://www.td.com/document/PDF/economics/special/Ontario_P3.pdf
Noted
Perhaps. Perhaps. Maybe.
Delete"Essentially though the Province's/Metrolinx's procurement practices, they are attempting to privatize public transit by insisting that the bid process is restricted to a design, build, operate and maintain for 30 years through the 3Ps (Public Private Partnership)."
ReplyDeleteTo be more precise, the Request for Proposal or RFP (i.e. "the bid") has yet to be crafted or issued, so the terms are unclear, though the Request for Qualifications or RFQ for Hamilton LRT identifies a "design, build, finance, operate & maintain" model.
http://www.infrastructureontario.ca/Request-for-Qualifications-Issued-Hamilton-LRT/
For sake of comparison, the City of Ottawa is building its 13km Confederation West LRT Line under a DBF model (in which the City is contributing around 1/3 of the capital costs).
Noted
Mr. Tuck
ReplyDeleteYou and the brethren need to make loud and sustained noises starting now and right up until the election. There is some very good advice here. Don't be taken by smiles and gestures of understanding. Your members are already behind in this.
Just saying
they believed they had support which has proven to be ineffective, and disloyal.
DeleteThe rank and file need to remember those who vowed support and then voted to have them replaced with non-union outsiders. Such betrayal is worthy of special consideration.
They wont be fooled again.
"The rank and file need to remember those who vowed support and then voted to have them replaced with non-union outsiders"
DeleteThis never happened so they cant remember it.
Mike Stark
"Our community will stand with us to ensure our public transit system through HSR/ATU drives this great city for the next century just as they did on November 24th, 1906."
ReplyDeleteRespectfully, that's a pretty loaded call to action.
"Widespread violence and vandalism erupted during an HSR transit strike after managers tried to keep the system going. Streetcars and other transit property were severely damaged in stone-hurling incidents, as were other vehicles that were caught in the fray. It all came to a head on Nov. 24, 1906, at 7:15 p.m. when the city's mayor and sheriff stood on the steps of City Hall on James Street North and read the Riot Act before an unruly mob.
The incident stands out as the worst example of the loss of law and order in the city, and one of only two times the Riot Act has been invoked in Hamilton. The other time, in 1855, led to a quick dispersal of a crowd, and widespread mayhem was avoided. In 1906, after the declaration was read in the midst of the HSR strike, a force of 15 officers and 162 cavalry members charged into the unruly crowd with swinging clubs and fixed bayonets. Scores of people were injured and 32 people were arrested. Thankfully, no one was killed."
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6831311-nov-24-1906-hsr-strike-sparks-violence-riot-act-invoked/
So much for that Zero Tolerance policy LOL
Flywheel
I read Bratina's place in the spec today, that argues that putting this effort into LRT will suck a lot of energy out of Hamilton and cause a lot of trouble. I agree with him. Vote this crazy idea down please.
ReplyDeleteLloyd, what are you thinking?
Everyone is being kind of vague about citing these collective agreement protections chapter and verse, so I'm not entirely certain about the protections at play, but here are some mentions that might be germane:
ReplyDeleteARTICLE 2 - RECOGNITION
Article 2.02
"In an effort to address concerns of the Union that privatization or mergers will adversely affect the existence of the Union, the City (HSR) and the Union agree that should the City (HSR) be sold, merged with another City or change its ownership, the Union and City (HSR) agree that the A.T.U. will be the sole bargaining agent."
ARTICLE 4 - MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
Article 4.01
"The Union recognizes the right of the City (HSR) to operate and manage its business in all respects in accordance with its commitments and responsibilities, the operating schedules, the direction of the working forces, the right to decide on the number of Employees required by the City (HSR) at any time and jurisdiction over all operations, buildings, machinery, tools, equipment and Employees are solely and exclusively the responsibility of the City (HSR). The City (HSR) also has the right to make, alter and enforce from time to time Rules and Regulations to be observed by the Employees, but before altering any such rules, the City (HSR) must discuss same with the duly accredited officers of the Union, and give them an opportunity of making representation with regard to proposed alterations.”
The City (HSR) also agrees to inform the President of Local 107 of major policy, procedure and shift changes, for the purpose of giving the Local an opportunity to make recommendations with regard to these matters prior to implementation.
https://atucanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/pdf/locals/cba107.pdf
Thing is, the system is not being privatized. HSR will continue to exist. If it changes ownership as a whole, then Article 2.02 would be critical. As it is only a single route that is being removed from service, the pertinent section is arguably the second cited above, Article 4.01. As this is more akin to a policy shift than a privatization of the HSR system, the City is contractually obligated to seek out the input of ATU107 President Tuck, and that is arguably the extent of it.
JJ Gittes
"ATU has not been engaged as a stakeholder"
DeleteIgnored. Disrespected. Lied to.
Respectfully, I believe your argument is framed inaccurately and reveals its own weakness.
Thing is, a route which they currently operate is about to be removed, privatized, and restructured. And the language of the contract is not vague, but specific, and affords "exclusive" right of operation to HSR, and has now been cast aside unilaterally by those blinded by vision.
And all was avoidable.
Respectfully, Metrolinx — a Crown agency of the province of Ontario which has procured all of the HSR's buses for the last decade and which also serves Hamilton with GO Transit — is not a signatory to the ATU107 Collective agreement. The City of Hamilton is (see page 1 of the Collective Agreement. And Metrolinx, which will own the route, plans to tender a long-term service agreement for a crosstown LRT line but is not selling off the HSR in whole or in part. Nor is the city. Paying customers are getting to make modal choices.
DeleteI would agree that the Collective Agreement includes language. And as to the assertion that “conversion of existing fixed route conventional transit services” being “exclusively ATU work,” that’s all well and good — except that the City/HSR doesn’t have to convert the 10 B-Line. Under Article 4.01, it can modify it in other ways that are all within its legal purview — adjusting routing, service levels, staffing and so forth. Or it might opt to merge it with the 1 King, a route that, save for a 2km jog through Westdale, is essentially its twin.
That the ATU107 president played the riot card suggests that the union's faith in its legal protections is far from absolute. They're banking on street justice.
JJ Giddes
"blinded by vision"
Delete! Ditch the vision, stay 2020.*
*"Vision 2020 calls for a doubling of transit usage from the current level of approximately 50 rides per capita to 100 rides per capita. If this ridership growth was to be generated entirely through service improvements, it would require at least a doubling of transit service hours, and likely more, and associated funding increases.…
Transportation Master plan has set target of reducing auto vehicle-km by 20% by 2031."
http://www2.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/9D868772-92BE-4A69-B874-42A1081726CD/0/TTRFinalReport.pdf
Sigma Cub
JJ, you played the riot card, not Mr.Tuck, and while your support may be tepid, I believe the community will rally in aid of these who have been tossed aside in the interest of "forward thinking" bureaucrats.
ReplyDeleteYou are forecasting they will act the thug, and undermine community interest.
They are hoping for support.
They have mine.
Respectfully, you may want to revisit the closing line of Mr. Tuck's Q&A: "Our community will stand with us to ensure our public transit system through HSR/ATU drives this great city for the next century just as they did on November 24th, 1906."
DeleteWhen I look for HSR labour disputes from November 24, 1906, I come up with an event that led to the intervention of nearly 200 soldiers and the reading of the Riot Act.
http://www.hpl.ca/articles/hamilton-street-railway-strike-0
Mr. Tuck pointedly did not mention the public's "We Walk" solidarity from November 4 onward. He did not mention the HSR's subsequent strikes of 1967, 1971, 1982, 1996 or 1998 a though it would have arguably made a more forceful point. (Maybe because 1906 was the only time during the 45 years that the HSR was privately owned that ATU workers were obliged to strike.)
I'm not forecasting that the City will "act the thug," merely that the language of the collective agreement, like most legal documents, is fodder for interpretation. The ATU has their favoured interpretation, as the City has theirs, but I would be mightily surprised if both parties' lawyers had not considered other reads. I imagine that's why there are specializations like contract and labour law.
JJ Gittes
Mr Tuck pointedly did not mention "riot"
DeleteYou did.
In an obvious effort to disparage the integrity of those affected, whilst inflaming anti union sentiment.
Bravo.
Councilor Collins was sharp enough to recognize potential implications for the City respecting language in the contract, and requested City legal staff investigate and report accordingly.
City legal staff assured Councilor Collins that any liability in this respect will be born solely by Metrolinx.
Phew! We dodged a bullet there...we wont have to pay..."they" will have to pay.
With the threat of any associated responsibility removed, Council caved.
And so it goes.
remember friends, this has nothing to do with improving transit for anyone, so lets stop pretending otherwise.
ReplyDeletethis is about waging war upon the automobile, mankind's worst invention in recorded history, the wall that separates the classes.
our plan is a society of equality, less for all.
Get aboard or get run over, the choice is ours.
If a few socialists are displaced in the process, they will soon be recognized for their ultimate sacrifice.
After they are gone, we will erect a plaque.
Problem solved
orangemike.
"Our community will stand with us… just as they did on November 24th, 1906."
ReplyDelete10K Hamiltonians reportedly stood with the ATU in November 1906.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5WhktVyVFM
That works out to be around 15% of the city’s population of the day. The equivalent feat in 2017 would be a protest of 80K.
Noted
"the loss of approximately 40 to 50 good quality union jobs that could be replaced with low pay, precarious positions with no pension or benefits"
ReplyDeleteCould.
The HSR could opt to redraw bus routes and the City could opt to increase service levels, reducing job loss to zero.
Council could choose to reinstate years 3 through 10 of the City’s Ten Year Local Transit Strategy, thereby growing the HSR’s ranks by 225 full-time employees with good quality union jobs, pensions and benefits, most if not all of whom will be members of ATU 107. That would have the effect of growing the local's membership by nearly 1/3 between now and 2025.
Noted
Years 3-10 of the City’s Ten Year Local Transit Strategy aim to grow the HSR’s ranks by 274 full-time employees.
Deletehttp://www2.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/192E4CEA-55ED-418A-B60D-AE589F4DDD07/0/TransitStrategy_PW14015a.pdf
Sigma Cub
Apologies: An increase of 225 transit workers would assume that the aforementioned 40-50 positions were lost. If they were retained and the Ten Year Local Transit Strategy hiring committed to, ATU 107 membership would grow by 40% over the next 8 years.
DeleteNoted
you would still have non-union outsiders operating LRT.
DeleteNot going to roll, not in this town.
orangemike
In the absence of an RFP for Hamilton LRT, what proof is there that LRT will have operators at all, unionized or otherwise? What's to say that LRT wouldn't be autonomous, or operated by unionized workers from ATU 107, ATU International (ie. transplanted workers with experience in LRT O&M), or a motivated insurgent union like Unifor.
DeleteAsking Is All
Paul Johnson is what, who, why.
Deleteorangemike
Has ATU107 ever assembled a budget deputation in support of investment in the HSR, or formally articulated a vision for Hamilton transit, à la ATU113?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akYkZor_33I
https://wemovetoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ATU-Local-113-Torontos-Transit-Future-Summary-and-Recommendations.pdf
Asking Is All
ATU 107's contract expires at the end of 2018. Hence the sudden eagerness for profile.
ReplyDeleteBiddingo